Pulling from footballgod's thread about running the SEC, what would you do if you were given the keys to the conference. Do you keep the staus quo? Are teams evicted? Are teams brought in? What is the logic behind your decisions?

Feel free to question others' decisions, but don't be a wimp --- put your own ideas up first!

You will never convince me that the future hopes of the WAC don't lie in that direction. The concept gets a bad rap because of the Big East, but it is IMO an unfair one. The Big East tries to be a democracy with equal amounts of football and basketball schools for equal voting rights in the direction of their conference. That is why the Big East is so disfunctional.

The Sunbelt is an example of a healthy hybrid. Football calls the shots, basketball comes along for the ride.

The facts are, even the worst FBS conference can steal top basketball schools from the better non-football conferences, because football is higher profile. University Presidents consider athletics to be advertising for their Universities. Higher profile conferences win.

This is a job I'd love to have because I think the WAC can rival the MWC in short order if the member institutions just pull their heads out of their butts and acknowledge none of them have vaild BCS dreams.

The first thing I would do is get a committment to the WAC from the member schools. I would want a a commitment for 10 years and an agreement on a $5M exit fee for that period. Any school not committing to the WAC will be on my bad side. (Do you hear me, Boise State?)

Honestly, I expect I could get commitments from all schools but Boise. That would be fine. I would probably try to dump them as soon as possible if they could not commit to being a good conference member. Boise is in looney world. A healthy Idaho (one with a fixed stadium situation) makes Boise's presence or non-presence a total non-factor.

I would explain the basic reality of the WAC --- we are a FBS conference with few media markets and no hope of ever acheiving full BCS status due to academic perception. Additionally, the attendance issues as San Jose State and Idaho specifically are hurting the long term health of the conference. San Jose State represents 2.419 TV households --- 41% of the conference TVs. Idaho represents 836K TV sets on their own and can still deliver Boise if Boise State bolts. That is 14% of the conference total. These facts do not seem to be understood by the member schools.

Once this is exposed, I would unfurl my plan to get the WAC financially healthy by solving the Idaho/SJ state issues and expansion into good media markets. With solid committments from it's membership, the conference would financially be in a position to get a loan for $15M to fund half of the construction of a new on-campus 30K football stadium. The Kibbie Dome would become an incliment weather alternative site. Seeing our commitment to Idaho, I feel confident that the Idaho legislature, alumni, and student body would meet us half way and come up with the other 15K, I think. Idaho would pay off the loan via the increased ticket sales revenue over the next 10 years. (I think this is a safe bet as Idaho has a long history of football success and strong attendance ---- % of capacity. Their stadium has been the bottleneck choaking out their FBS success.)

The expansion plan would target larger Div 1 non-football and FCS schools who could make a reasonable go of it in FBS with a little help and schools that are near San Jose State who might help that school be less isolated, and become natural rivals generating football interest.

The goal would be to carve out a niche along the Nevada, Utah, AZ corridor essentially taking advantage of the fact that most PAC 10 schools hug the coast of california and most MWC schools are further inland and that both conferences are fervently against expansion. There are plenty of healthy markets and schools available to fix the WAC if the member schools are committed.

I would meet with the presidents and ADs of potential member schools and would ask them a very simple question, "If you saw financial viability and modest financial profit would you move up to FBS?" If they answered yes or maybe, they are in. If not, they are out.

Schools would be offered non-football membership in return for a promise to pursue FBS status if local support is available. For my part, after a school is admitted, I would loudly wax of the day when these schools student bodies insist their universities take advantage of the benefits of being full members of an FBS conference--- the highest level of university athletic excellence --- by working to fund the creation or expansion of on-campus or very near campus stadiums to the 30-45K capacity that is required for FBS viability. If I needed to, I might even push for some league loan assistance per the Idaho loan model.

I would also go against form and offer bids to a couple of schools in established central markets to increase our relevance in our heartland, for future positioning, and to punish our betrayers. I would offer slots to SLC market schools IAAA indy Utah Valley State College (soon to be Utah Valley University) and FCS Weber State.

(Utah State is seen as a red headed stepchild to Utah and BYU. Utah State, UVU, and Weber State are all mid to large publics. Their combined enrollments/alumni bases would give us real traction in the SLC market.)

I would offer a slot to FCS Cal Poly as they are a Cal State school and I want to build the relationship between the WAC and the Cal State system and because their proximity to SJ State can only help SJ State attendance.

I would not offer FCS UC Davis membership for a number of reasons. They don't work for the WAC. They cut into Sacramento State's recruiting and are a superfluous satellite in terms of adding market value. Additionally, truth be told, the WAC probably doesn't work for them. I do like Davis and would do everything possible to help them though. I want to further punish Utah and BYU by helping Davis ascend into PAC 10 membership, blocking the Utah schools. I would insist member schools offer every possible scheduling favor to Davis. Another nearby school to SJ state for scheduling never hurts.

This would be dynamite in terms of increases in basketball and baseball broadcast revenue, and I think with WAC membership in hand, Portland State, Sacramento State, and Northern Arizona administrators, students, and alumni would quickly find they have the support to dig up the funds to build or expand the 30-45K stadiums on or near campus.

I think Weber State and possibily UVU would also quickly find the support to upgrade their facilities to the 30K minimum threshold the conference would require to begin FBS play under my iron fisted rule.

As schools joined the WAC, I would start to redraw our travel boundaries more sensibly. I would have a long talk with the LA tech university President about travel costs. I would tell him very bluntly that I will do anything in my power to help his school, but that he really needs to either play as an indy or join the sunbelt, because he is crippling his program in the WAC. Additionally a point will come where the member schools will vote out LA Tech. I would sit down with the comissioner of the sunbelt and work out a deal for La Tech. I would be willing to take on Denver as a non-basketball member to open a slot for La Tech.

If TCU bolts the MWC as I think they will, the MWC may invite Boise to save face. With Idaho's stadium situation resolved and a few new members, the WAC can handle that.

As we hit 9-10 football schools, I will try to land NM State and Denver into the emerging Texas conference as a package deal with the Denver media market and a bowl comittment being the bait.

By 2025, The WAC might be something along the lines of:

Hawaii
Idaho
Utah State
Weber State
Portland State
Sacramento State
San Jose State
Fresno State
UNR
N. Arizona

with non football/FCS
Cal Poly
Utah Valley University

10 FBS schools with 2 non-FBS members with 9.969M TV households. Eventually, someone will make an offer to Utah and BYU and the MWC will collapse. When that happens, the WAC would be properly situated to reacquire SD state and UNLV. At that point the WAC will be a very healthy #2 conference to the PAC 10, with 12 FBS members, 2 non-FBS members, and 11.727 TV households in a solid footprint.

Last edited by finiteman on Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

Interesting fantasy there. The comment about the most conservative legislature in the union going half-in on a new stadium in Moscow to not even completely replace the current one that doesn't get filled dearly intrigues me. The Boise State being rendered a "total non-factor" also amused me.

Boise has enough cache to get you fired as commissioner, even though you'd probably be right in saying they don't have enough cache to get into the MWC anytime soon.

I don't see a REALISTIC scenario in which the WAC overtakes the Mountain West... at least not for 20 years, and that would be an expensive proposition with little likely ROI.

La Tech's greatest fear is ending up in the Sunbelt. UAB feels the same. If the BE strips CUSA of several programs, CUSA and Sunbelt may need to merge, in which case, both UAB and La Tech will realize their nightmares.

La Tech is not going to the Sunbelt. You better work out another deal with another conference.

There might be another option for La Tech, but there isn't as of today. CUSA could be an option if things break right for La Tech.

I think La Tech is not as much anti-sunbelt as they are against the idea of being in the sunbelt with ULM. In either scenario, I was treating it like a financially viable way station for La Tech, until something better comes along.

Interesting fantasy there. The comment about the most conservative legislature in the union going half-in on a new stadium in Moscow to not even completely replace the current one that doesn't get filled dearly intrigues me. The Boise State being rendered a "total non-factor" also amused me.

Boise has enough cache to get you fired as commissioner, even though you'd probably be right in saying they don't have enough cache to get into the MWC anytime soon.

Well, there are two views of Boise State. Some feel that they are a winning team and as such the BCS schools are just dying for an opportunity to let them in. Then there are people who look at the Boise market and see a relatively small market, look at the school and see a relatively unremarkable academic school, look at the endowment and see a small endowment, look at the attendance and see solid but unspectacular attendance.

I am obviously in the latter camp.

I think there is a lot of resentment towards Boise in the WAC today due to their public and seemingly uni-directional flirting with the MWC. I doubt they have the pull today with the other member schools to get any WAC commisioner fired.

Quote:

I don't see a REALISTIC scenario in which the WAC overtakes the Mountain West... at least not for 20 years, and that would be an expensive proposition with little likely ROI.

Neither do I. I did note in my scenario that the WAC would try to basically fill a slot between the MWC and PAC 10. They would essentially be the #2 conference in the Pac 10 footprint everywhere but San Diego.

In terms of ROI, we just disagree. I think enlarging the conference TV footprint as discribed would more than pay for any outlays.

I think "resentment" is overstated. Besides, Boise State supposedly has Karl Benson in their pocket, but ESPN dictated the football schedule to the conference, especially where BSU had to travel to Hawaii for the post-Thanksgiving WAC title showdown (I believe the 6th time in a row BSU finished on the road). Besides, Nevada had been calling basketball shots for a while.

The trick to enlarging the market is to have schools actually delivering those markets. For every single market from Salt Lake to larger, you're delivering at BEST 10% of each market, probably worse. That don't feed the big cable network.

La Tech is not going to the Sunbelt. You better work out another deal with another conference.

There might be another option for La Tech, but there isn't as of today. CUSA could be an option if things break right for La Tech.

I think La Tech is not as much anti-sunbelt as they are against the idea of being in the sunbelt with ULM. In either scenario, I was treating it like a financially viable way station for La Tech, until something better comes along.

MWC is a conference of schools looking to move up. WAC is a conference looking for stability. I think the Big12 and PAC 10 rip the MWC apart. Ofcourse pending the PAC 10 deciding to expand and Texas schools plus OU leaving the big 12.

The trick to enlarging the market is to have schools actually delivering those markets. For every single market from Salt Lake to larger, you're delivering at BEST 10% of each market, probably worse. That don't feed the big cable network.

I think that is the point of schools like PSU, N. Arizona, and Sac State. All schools are afterthoughts as FCS schools, but IMO would have a much better following at the FBS level as they are in "empty" markets.

Certainly they wouldn't be there from day 1, but like UCF or USF (larger scale versions of schools in similar situations) they could quickly develop at a higher level.

Last edited by finiteman on Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The goal for any non-AQ conference should be aimed at eventual BCS membership. I think the WAC, suprisingly, may be in better shape than most conferences when it comes to this exciting proposition. The WAC is in a unique position in the West; there are many large, academically elite public schools moving up through Divisions I and II inside the WAC's footprint. While I think outright membership for the WAC is farfetched, I believe the conference has the potential to overtake the MWC sometime in the future.

The first item of Business for the WAC should be to establish a unique conference footprint. To accomplish this, I'd start trying to find a new home for both New Mexico State and Louisiana Tech. Both programs stretch the conference footprint and fail to make up for this either athletically or academically. I'd start talks with the sunbelt, conference-usa, or even FCS Missouri Valley or Southland. Not to say that either of these two schools don't add plenty of value, just that they don't fit into the long terms plans of the WAC. I'd be left with:

Boise State
Idaho
Utah State
San Jose State
Fresno State
Nevada-Reno
Hawaii

Secondly, I'd start talks with the MWC about adding Boise State. While the Broncos bring a great football program, I have two qualms with them: 1) Boise's acadmeics are clearly not quite up to par with my standards. 2) Boise's market, school size and endowment doesn't add up to an extended stay at the current level of success. I think they'll cool off a bit in the next couple of years; Boise will post alot more 8-4 or 7-5 seasons than 10-2 seasons.

Boise compares somewhat to the early 2000's Marshall: A university with a good football program and so-so basketball/other sports. In Marshall's case, the school played in a small market, fan support waned, and when the school moved from the MAC to a tougher C-USA, Marshall football suffered. While the man on the street will disagree with me, I think the MWC is the stronger conference and the WAC is Boise's weaker competition. Once Boise moves to the MWC, I think the 8-4 and 9-3 seasons that Boise would have produced in the WAC will translate into 7-5 and 6-6 seasons in the MWC.

Another advantage of convincing the MWC to take Boise now is that the MWC becomes less likely to take our star school, Fresno State. After living through the horrid experience of the WAC-16, I think it's unlikely the schools of the MWC will be looking at divisions anytime soon. This means that the expansion likely stops at ten, leaving only one spot open for a WAC school. Given time, the MWC should realize that Fresno is the best canidate to fill the tenth MWC spot. If we can convince the MWC to take Boise, we've increased our chances to keep the WAC's most developed athletic program and the largest market. California State-Fresno is the conference's star pupil, NOT Boise, and as commisioner, my duty is to do everything in my power to keep them.

Before I convince the MWC to buy into Boise's success, I must shore up our conference in case of unexpected expansion or schools dropping football. I'll add the two best canidates from the Big Sky: Portland State and Montana. This would call for some upgrades in the athletic departements; both teams would be required to submit a ten-year plan to A) expand their athletic budgets to 13M and B) expand their staduims to around 25,000. Montana adds another state flagship university, while Portland State is a large public in a media market lacking FBS or even FCS competition inside its metro area. All this and to boot, Oregon and Oregon State are located 100 miles away in different media markets. Portland State is also already a DR/U and working hard to move up to Tier 3. I'm now left with:

Portland State
Montana
Idaho
Utah State
California State-Fresno
San Jose State
Nevada
Hawaii

And while we're on the topic, my other goal as WAC conference commisioner is to instill some minimum requirements to become a WAC conference member. First, I would ask that every school release a ten year plan towards a 25k stadium if it hasn't already. Due to low funds and a struggling football program, I'd make the University of Idaho an exception to the rule. I would start talking to the state of Idaho about going half-in on a renovation of the kibbie dome. I'll point to Idaho's success as 1-AA program, and their prominence as Idaho's statewide school. I won't ask the legislature for much money, just enough cash to fund an increase from 15,000 to 20,000 seats plus a million or so to renovate the basketball facility. Idaho will construct a payment plan over the next ten years and pay the state through athetlics revenue; to help Idaho pay off the loan I would suggest the university ask the student body to approve a 100$ ammendum to tuition per student/year; whilst kickstarting a massive fundraising program amoung prominent Idaho alumni. Secondly, I would ask each school to release a similar ten year plan to gradually increase thier athletics budget to 18 million. I think the whole conference has the potential to reach this milestone.

I believe the WAC would be wise to follow the MWC and C-USA strategy, building up the conference with large publics in large markets lacking a BCS level school. However, what separates the MWC from C-USA and WAC is that the MWC has a dominant school in their two largest markets: Las Vegas and Salt Lake City. My goal as commisioner is to balance this desire with improving the WAC's shoddy academic reputation. However, schools such as these are a rare find; as commisioner, it would be my duty to take chances on programs far away from D-I in hopes they'll pan out. After Portland State and Montana have become full members, my next major step in expansion is to approach the University of British Columbia and California-Davis for either full or part time membership to the WAC.

British Columbia's transition to D-II should close to complete in approximatley the time it would take for Montana and Portland State to complete thier upgrade to FBS. UBC has stated that they would like to start out atleast two of thier athletic programs in Division I. I would do everything in my power to land UBC as a conference associatie member for those sports, one of which is likely to be baseball . As an associate member, UBC would not have to fufill the commitments required of a full-time WAC member. As an incentive for UBC's addition to the conference, I'd guarentee a home for Simon Fraser should they ever want to move a WAC-sponsored program to Division 1 FBS. When/If UBC moves to full Division I, the rivalries and familiarity with the WAC should make the transition to a full-time member an easier task. UBC not only brings a huge student body, a gigantic BCS-free market, spotless academics and a staggeringly huge endowment, but it also brings the WAC more publicity in the national media as the first NCAA D-I FBS athletic conference with a presence in Canada. If all goes well, I think British Columbia can bring full Division I membership to the WAC between 2025 and 2030. Until a suitable stadium is found, I would encourage British Columbia to rent out BC Place staduim, which is state-of-the art, and seats 60k. If the deal is sucesssful, BC's rented staduim would be the most state-of-the art staduim in the WAC. The staduim is currently home to the CFL's BC Lions, but I believe the young football program could work around the professional team.

As a more short-term goal, I'd talk to California-Davis about membership in the WAC. California-Davis is a perfect storm for a California athletic school: They are located in a college town (Davis) only 15 miles away from a major media market with neither NFL or BCS prescesne. While Davis might as well be invisible in Sacramento as a D-1AA school, I think revamping the football and basketball programs will attract signifigant attention from the big city. I would not be asking for a miracle from the school, only to bring around 10% of the Sacramento market. UC Davis has more money, more students, and better academics than nearby Sacramento State. As a bonus, if UC Davis fails to entice attention from Sacramento, they still have the town of Davis to fall back on, as well as a large student body. I would offer UC Davis full time membership in everything but football, with football coming later once the school upgrades their staduim. If everything goes to plan, California-Davis and British Columbia should be members in all sports around 2030.

As commisioner, I would insititude another requirement for conference membership around 2020. All teams in the WAC would now be required to release a second ten-year plan; this time increasing seating to 30,000, with basketball arenas increased to around 10,000. I would let Idaho be the exception to the rule, as they would only need to meet basketball requirements. With its large student body and great financial support, I believe UC Davis can reach this goal. If British Columbia can reach an agreement with BC Place the school should be fine. Because Davis and British Columbia are still new to FBS, I would give them an extra five years to fufill staduim requirements, with only 7,000 required for Basketball. As a requirement for conference membership, each school would release a ten year plan to increase athletic budgets to 23M. As new D-1 members, Davis and British Columbia would recieve an extra five years on these increases.

To make Davis and British Columbia feel at home, I would invite two of thier major rivals for part-time, non-football membership: University of California-San Diego and Simon Fraser. Simon Fraser and San Diego are young schools that reside in major metropolitan areas, with SF in Vancouver and UCSD in San Diego. Both schools bring spotless academics, growing erollments, and UCSD would bring a terrific olympic sports program. I would eventually ask both schools to achieve FBS football, but that will still be 10-20 years down the road. Until then, I'd encourage both programs to play as non-scholarship D-IAA(A), preferably in the pioneer league (or whatever reeincarnation that league is in). As non-football members, both schools would be required to have 13M athletic budgets and 10k basketball staduims within ten years of joining the WAC (not alot to ask in either case).

So, would our advanced WAC be a BCS-equivilent league? First, the major markets under WAC control in Northern California, Hawaii, Reno and Canada stack up very well to modern-day MWC markets in Las Vegas, Salt Lake Ciy and Albequerqe. As a bonus, if UC-Davis can win over half or even a forth of Sacramento TV sets, the WAC has very sold claim to about a forth of california between Davis, California State-Fresno, and Nevada. The recruiting benifits of this are enormous for league on the fringe of the BCS.

From the markets above, the WAC could pull about 7.8 Million TV Sets, in markets with the potential for 28.1 M tv sets. As a added bonus, the WAC also brings five state flagship schools: Idaho, Montana, Hawaii, British Columbia and Nevada, and four Tier I academic schools [or Canadian equivilent]: British Columbia, Simon Fraser, Cal-San Diego and Cal-Davis. Plus, every school in the conference except for California State and San Jose State is DR/U [or equivilent]. As an added bonus, a D-I UC-San Diego could very well become the dominant non-BCS school in the San Diego market; eclipsing the MWC's San Diego State. If the MWC loses most of its exposure in California, the conference would really suffer. Most of the schools also house large enrollmets and endowments:

The real question is this: could a conference of schools new to Division 1 or FBS levels of competition become a mid-major powerhouse? Most of the succesful schools and markets of the old WAC remain in place, and the conference would make major strides both in academics and exposure. Our 'New WAC' would have the clout to obtain a TV deal on the level of the current day MWC, a conference that fields competition that is between the BCS 6 and the non-BCS schools. As the MWC has a football slant to the conference, I think our WAC has a basketball slant, as schools from this group will be new to D-I Football even in 2030. I could see a basketball league on level of the Atlantic Ten, with a school in the top ten every other year. Nevada is already a basketball powerhouse, Utah State and Hawaii are solid WAC schools, while Idaho, British Columbia, UC San Diego and UC Davis could all be WAC basketball powers in waiting. The future is bright in our new-and-improved WAC.

Last edited by thelurker on Mon May 12, 2008 10:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The WAC could try to create a bridge to LA Tech. A couple of Texas schools could do the trick such as a Texas State upgrade. When North Texas opted to stay with the Sun Belt, the idea of geographic continuity for the WAC slid.

I think it would be best for the WAC to assemble some sort of geographical footprint, either in the Pacific Northwest (OR, MT, ID, UT, NV) or in the Southwest (CA, UT, NV, AZ, NM). I think the WAC would be well served to develop rivalries between nearby schools in the conference. Stretching the conference from California to Idaho to Louisiana really works against this.

Then again, Texas State or North Texas would both be great additions to the conference. A few years down the road, UNT could very well be the number #1 non-BCS school in the Metroplex. I can't think who else would really fit, Missouri State? Maybe a UT school, such as UT-San Antonio or UT-Arlington, would work well. Maybe an alignment like this?

North Texas/Texas State
Louisiana Tech
UT-San Antonio
New Mexico State
Utah State
Nevada

While we're on the topic, I'll get the athletic department at Fresno State to rebrand the university California State, ditto with Nevada-Reno being rebranded as Nevada. I think this will kick start both programs public perception.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum